labor law digest

noise in the office will simply be too hard to ignore. Given the reasonableness of Geiserts
decision that provoked petitioner to send the second e-mail message, the Court of Appeals

Punzal vs. ETSI Technologies [G.R. No. 170384-85. March 9, 2007

Facts: Lorna Punzal worked as a department secretary in ETSI. One day, she sent an e-mail to

correctly ruled that "the message x x x resounds of subversion and undermines the authority
and credibility of management and that petitioner "displayed a tendency to act without

her officemates announcing the holding of a Halloween party that was to be held in the office the

managements approval, and even against managements will." Moreover, in circulating the

following day. She invited her officemates to bring their kids to the office in their Halloween

second e-mail message, petitioner violated Articles III (8) and IV (5) of ETSIs Code of Conduct

costumes and to go trick or treating in the office. Her immediate superior advised Punzal to

on "making false or malicious statements concerning the Company, its officers and employees or

seek the approval of management. Then she learned that Senior Vice President Geisert did not

its products and services" and "improper conduct or acts of discourtesy or disrespect to fellow

approve of the plan to hold a party in the office. So, she sent another email to her officemates

employees, visitors, guests, clients, at any time." Nevertheless, the violation of her statutory due

expressing her disappointment, particularly saying that: He was so unfairpara bang palagi

process right entitles her to an award of nominal damage, which this Court fixes at P30,000,

siyang iniisahan sa trabahobakit most of the parents na mag-joined ang anak ay naka-VL

pursuant to the ruling in Agabon.

naman. Anyway, solohin na lang niya bukas ang office. To those parents who would like to bring
their Kids in Megamall there will be Trick or Treating at Mc Donalds Megamall Bldg. A at 10:00
AM tomorrow and lets not spoil the fun for our kids. The management said that she committed
an offense under Article IV, No. 5 & 8 Improper conduct or acts of discourtesy or disrespect and
Making malicious statements concerning Company Officer, punishable by suspension to
termination depending upon the gravity of the offense/s as specified in our ETSIs Code of
Conduct and Discipline.

Issue: Was Punzal validly terminated?

Held: A scrutiny of petitioners second e-mail message shows that her remarks were not merely
an expression of her opinion about Geiserts decision; they were directed against Geisert.

Eddie Manuel vs N.C. Construction Supply

In June 1995, the security guards of N.C. Construction
Supply caught an employee stealing from the company
premises. The said employee then admitted that the
incident was part of a series of theft involving four other
employees, namely, Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana, Rogelio
Pagtama, Jr., and Joel Rea. The four were then invited
to the police station for questioning. The owner of N.C.
Construction sent his lawyer, Atty. Ramon Reyes to
interrogate the four employees.

Further, her closing statement even invited her co-workers to join a trick or treating activity at
another venue during office hours, encouraging them to ignore Geiserts authority. That it has
been a tradition in ETSI to celebrate occasions such as Christmas, birthdays, Halloween, and
others does not remove Geiserts prerogative to approve or disapprove plans to hold such
celebrations in office premises and during company time. In the case at bar, the disapproval of
the plan to hold the Halloween party on October 31, 2001 may not be considered to have been
actuated by bad faith. As the Labor Arbiter noted: the holding of a trick or treat party in the
office premises of respondent ETSI would certainly affect the operations of the office, since
children will be freely roaming around the office premises, things may get misplaced and the

Manuel et al admitted the crime imputed against them

before Atty. Reyes. They agreed that in exchange for
N.C. Construction not filing a case, they will resign as
employees instead. But after resigning, the four former
employees sued N.C. Construction for illegal dismissal.
They now claim that their admission made in the police
station before Atty. Reyes was coerced by the lawyer
and that they were without the assistance of counsel
which is violative of their constitutional rights.

ISSUE: Whether or not Manuel et al were dismissed

without valid cause.
HELD: No. Manuel et al were positively identified by
witnesses as part of the series of theft. This was not
sufficiently controverted by them. Under Article 282 of
the Labor Code, such act authorizes the employer to
terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust
and confidence, provided that the loss of confidence
arises from particular proven facts.
What is the quantum of proof needed?
Substantial evidence or such relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in
criminal case.
Anent the issue of threat and intimidation, there was no
sufficient proof presented by Manuel et al to prove that
the lawyer coerced them to make the admission.

Anent the issue that Atty. Reyess interrogation of them

without the presence of counsel if violative of their
constitutional rights, such argument is misplaced. The
right to counsel accorded by the Constitution only
applies to criminal cases and only on custodial
investigations. In this case, this is not a criminal case
and Manuel et al were not under custodial investigation
when they were interrogated by Atty. Reyes. It is also of
no moment that Atty. Reyess interrogation happened in
a police station. What Atty. Reyes did was a private
administrative investigation for the interest of his
employer, the N.C. Construction.
However, Manuel et al are entitled to damages
(P1,000.00 each) because it appears that although they
were dismissed for a just cause, their dismissal was
without the proper procedure (twin-notice rule not
observed by NC Construction). The two-notice rule
provides:
The employer must furnish the worker with two written
notices before termination of employment can be legally
effected:
(1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular
acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and
(2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee
of the employers decision to dismiss him.

G.R. No. L-19052, December 29, 1962

MANUEL F. CABAL, petitioner, vs. HON. RUPERTO KAPUNAN, JR., and THE CITY FISCAL

public officer or employee which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer

OF MANILA, respondents.

or employee and his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property.
However, such forfeiture has been held to partake of the nature of a penalty. As a consequence,

CONCEPCION, J.:

proceedings for forfeiture of property are deemed criminal or penal, and, hence, the exemption

Col. Jose C. Maristela filed with the Secretary of National Defense a letter-complaint charging

of defendants in criminal case from the obligation to be witnesses against themselves are

petitioner Manuel Cabal, then Chief of Staff of the AFP, with "graft, corrupt practices, unexplained

applicable thereto.

wealth, and other equally reprehensible acts". The President of the Philippines created a
committee to investigate the charge of unexplained wealth. The Committee ordered petitioner
herein to take the witness stand in the administrative proceeding and be sworn to as witness for
Maristela, in support of his aforementioned charge of unexplained wealth. Petitioner objected to
the order of the Committee, invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The

No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This
prohibition against compelling a person to take the stand as a witness against himself applies to
criminal, quasi-criminal, and penal proceedings, including a proceeding civil in form for forfeiture
of property by reason of the commission of an offense, but not a proceeding in which the penalty
recoverable is civil or remedial in nature.

Committee insisted that petitioner take the witness stand and be sworn to, subject to his right to
refuse to answer such questions as may be incriminatory. This notwithstanding, petitioner

The privilege of a witness not to incriminate himself is not infringed by merely asking the witness

respectfully refused to be sworn to as a witness to take the witness stand.

a question which he refuses to answer. The privilege is simply an option of refusal, and not a
prohibition of inquiry. A question is not improper merely because the answer may tend to

The Committee referred the matter to the Fiscal of Manila, for such action as he may deem
proper. The City Fiscal filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a "charge" of contempt for
failing to obey the order of the Committee to take the witness stand. The "charge" was assigned

incriminate but, where a witness exercises his constitutional right not to answer, a question by
counsel as to whether the reason for refusing to answer is because the answer may tend to
incriminate the witness is improper.

to the sala of respondent judge Kapunan. Petitioner filed with respondent Judge a motion to
quash, which was denied. Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

The possibility that the examination of the witness will be pursued to the extent of requiring selfincrimination will not justify the refusal to answer questions. However, where the position of the

ISSUE: Whether or not the Committee's order requiring petitioner to take the witness stand
violates his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

HELD: Yes.

Although the said Committee was created to investigate the administrative charge of
unexplained wealth, it seems that the purpose of the charge against petitioner is to apply the
provisions of the Anti-Graft Law, which authorizes the forfeiture to the State of property of a

witness is virtually that of an accused on trial, it would appear that he may invoke the privilege
in support of a blanket refusal to answer any and all questions.

Note: It is not disputed that the accused in a criminal case may refuse, not only to answer
incriminatory questions, but, also, to take the witness stand.